Journalists seem to be more and more targeted in foreign conflicts across the world. Al-Jazeera did a really cool piece about journalists being detained/beaten/murdered in the Middle East and Russia as well as other places. Shit's sketchy. I doubt I'll ever try to be a foreign corespondent.

"Cheer up, beautiful people. This is where you get to make it right."

Everybody do the Bart Man!

"I haven't shaved my legs since new years eve. When I do, it will look like someone skinned a racoon in my bathroom."-- Jane6

Not necessarily 100% relevant, but I find it funny how much people are influenced by the media they watch. In Russia, which I visit frequently, media is really against USA and all of their foreign policies. Anything bad that happens has to be somehow the USAs fault. It is much the same in countries outside of Russia, in the UK at least everything is always done to be strongly anti-Russian, and most things are overexxagerated by most sides. Can't everyone just toke up and be friends goddammit? We have enough problems as it is trying to run our own countries without talking shit about everyone else.

A great example of this is the reporting done on the Ukraine conflict. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but both sides point the finger at each other, and bitch loads about stuff that is overplayed in order to cause conflict. Fuck that.

MLJNot necessarily 100% relevant, but I find it funny how much people are influenced by the media they watch. In Russia, which I visit frequently, media is really against USA and all of their foreign policies. Anything bad that happens has to be somehow the USAs fault. It is much the same in countries outside of Russia, in the UK at least everything is always done to be strongly anti-Russian, and most things are overexxagerated by most sides. Can't everyone just toke up and be friends goddammit? We have enough problems as it is trying to run our own countries without talking shit about everyone else.

A great example of this is the reporting done on the Ukraine conflict. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but both sides point the finger at each other, and bitch loads about stuff that is overplayed in order to cause conflict. Fuck that.

Just my opinion, what do you guys think?

Obviously this is not referring to the current case though, that is just bull, you can't do that to someone and get away with it. I was just referring to the really biased style of journalism often used.

MLJNot necessarily 100% relevant, but I find it funny how much people are influenced by the media they watch. In Russia, which I visit frequently, media is really against USA and all of their foreign policies. Anything bad that happens has to be somehow the USAs fault. It is much the same in countries outside of Russia, in the UK at least everything is always done to be strongly anti-Russian, and most things are overexxagerated by most sides. Can't everyone just toke up and be friends goddammit? We have enough problems as it is trying to run our own countries without talking shit about everyone else.

A great example of this is the reporting done on the Ukraine conflict. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but both sides point the finger at each other, and bitch loads about stuff that is overplayed in order to cause conflict. Fuck that.

Just my opinion, what do you guys think?

I see what you're saying, but I don't think funny is the correct word. For the majority of people, the media they consume literally constructs their reality. This is achieved through immersion, limited access and constant access. For example, in the U.S., 6 companies control virtually all of the media, which means that most Americans have a total of 6 biased and accepted/pre-approved views.

So when you turn on Fox news, pick up the Wall Street Journal, and watch a sitcom on Fox, you're, for the most part, receiving the same views across all forums. This view dictates truth, as it's what most consumers, who don't care/bother to dig deeper than network news. Same goes for a list of other media outlets, and ultimately an illusion of choice is created, allowing the companies to diversify and make insane profits. People rely on the "journalism" these companies provide, which is often times far more entertainment-based than fact- or information-centered work, because that's what undiscerning people like and is easy to digest, so it sells, so they watch it, and the cycle continues. But I feel I'm rambling now and I digress.

Really, though, what you're asking is a far bigger question than this answer can address. If you're really interested, I'd suggest you look into Noam Chomsky's propaganda model. It covers this fairly well by breaking it down into 5 basic prongs. Really solid theory in my opinion.

Everybody do the Bart Man!

"I haven't shaved my legs since new years eve. When I do, it will look like someone skinned a raccoon in my bathroom."-- Jane6

Bart.ManI see what you're saying, but I don't think funny is the correct word. For the majority of people, the media they consume literally constructs their reality. This is achieved through immersion, limited access and constant access. For example, in the U.S., 6 companies control virtually all of the media, which means that most Americans have a total of 6 biased and accepted/pre-approved views.

So when you turn on Fox news, pick up the Wall Street Journal, and watch a sitcom on Fox, you're, for the most part, receiving the same views across all forums. This view dictates truth, as it's what most consumers, who don't care/bother to dig deeper than network news. Same goes for a list of other media outlets, and ultimately an illusion of choice is created, allowing the companies to diversify and make insane profits. People rely on the "journalism" these companies provide, which is often times far more entertainment-based than fact- or information-centered work, because that's what undiscerning people like and is easy to digest, so it sells, so they watch it, and the cycle continues. But I feel I'm rambling now and I digress.

Really, though, what you're asking is a far bigger question than this answer can address. If you're really interested, I'd suggest you look into Noam Chomsky's propaganda model. It covers this fairly well by breaking it down into 5 basic prongs. Really solid theory in my opinion.

Crazy would have probably been better. What made me think of this in the first place is the incredibly biased views people here on NS or in england have about this whole conflict.

That thing with the whole choice illusion is 100% correct, never thought of it like that.
^ Ill read up on that propaganda model, thanks!

MLJCrazy would have probably been better. What made me think of this in the first place is the incredibly biased views people here on NS or in england have about this whole conflict.

That thing with the whole choice illusion is 100% correct, never thought of it like that.
^ Ill read up on that propaganda model, thanks!

Yeah, it's a fascinating field of study. I heard recently that Rupert Murdoch (Owner/founder/CEO of NewsCorp, company that owns Fox) violated FCC ownership laws and now potentially has 40% of the American audience's viewership. That's damn near half the country getting their info from one company/source.

But yeah, Chomsky has a bunch of interesting/great work out there. Solid scholar.

Everybody do the Bart Man!

"I haven't shaved my legs since new years eve. When I do, it will look like someone skinned a raccoon in my bathroom."-- Jane6

Bart.ManYeah, it's a fascinating field of study. I heard recently that Rupert Murdoch (Owner/founder/CEO of NewsCorp, company that owns Fox) violated FCC ownership laws and now potentially has 40% of the American audience's viewership. That's damn near half the country getting their info from one company/source.

But yeah, Chomsky has a bunch of interesting/great work out there. Solid scholar.

It's pretty fucked how much he controls. I saw a documentary about fox and (if i remember correctly) around 90% of their guest were republican and the small amount of democrats or people with other ideas that were invited were people that only were chosen because the host could make fun of them saying how their ideas sucked and how the republicans were better

‘I Had It Pretty Easy, Because I Was Let Go’: Simon Ostrovsky On His Detention in Sloviansk
Share

Tweet

By Simon Ostrovsky

April 25, 2014 | 3:00 am
On Thursday, armed gunmen who held me prisoner for three nights and three days released me into the streets of Sloviansk, in eastern Ukraine. My release was as unexplained as my capture.

On Monday night I was pulled out of a car at a checkpoint, then blindfolded, beaten, and tied up with tape. After spending hours alone on the floor of a damp cell with my hands tied behind my back and a hat pulled over my eyes, I was led into a room where I was accused of working for the CIA, FBI, and Right Sector, the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist group.

When I refused to give the password to my laptop, I was smacked in the arm with a truncheon. When I was asleep on the floor, masked men came to wake me up and tell me how no one would miss me if I died, and then kicked me in the ribs as they left.

But as it turns out, I had it pretty easy, because I was let go.

In the nights that I was held captive, a dozen other nameless detainees were ferried in and out of the cellar of the Ukraine state security (SBU) building by the pro-Russia militants who had taken it over. Some were journalists, some were drunks, and others were Ukrainian activists stupid or brave enough to visit what’s become a stronghold for Russian nationalists within Ukraine.

I only got to know a few of them. Most had been in that cellar far longer than I had. They had been there for up to two weeks, and are most likely still there now.

Their names are Artyom Deyneha, a local computer programmer who was caught setting up a webcam opposite the building where we were being held; Serhiy Lefter, a freelance journalist who was abducted on the main square in Sloviansk in broad daylight; Vadim Sukhonos, a deputy in the Sloviansk city council; and Vitaly Kovalchuk, a former member of the Euromaidan self-defense corps, who by his own admission came to Sloviansk with a group of Right Sector radicals who tried and failed to capture guns from pro-Russia militants.

After I was released, I found out that the leader of the pro-Russia forces in Sloviansk, Vyacheslav Ponomarev, told journalists that we were being held as “bargaining chips” in negotiations with the interim authorities in Kiev. I don’t yet know what he got for my release, but I hope it wasn’t very much, because no one should be allowed to take hostages no matter what their political demands are.

Everyone being illegally held in that damp cellar, or any of the other buildings controlled by the self-proclaimed “Donetsk People’s Republic,” should be released or handed over to the police immediately.

shredding_pandaIt's pretty fucked how much he controls. I saw a documentary about fox and (if i remember correctly) around 90% of their guest were republican and the small amount of democrats or people with other ideas that were invited were people that only were chosen because the host could make fun of them saying how their ideas sucked and how the republicans were better

Haha yeah, but Fox is damn brilliant. Is the documentary you're talking about Out Foxed? If so, I saw that and it's pretty well put together and does a good job of handling it.

Everybody do the Bart Man!

"I haven't shaved my legs since new years eve. When I do, it will look like someone skinned a raccoon in my bathroom."-- Jane6